When it first appeared in the mid-1980s, the Malibu rocked the GA world. Here was a pressurized, high-flying luxury ride capable of 200 knots and with impressive range to boot.
There was nothing quite like it and Piper soon found a loyal market for its new flagship product, mostly among well-to-do owners who could afford to sink a half-million bucks into a new airplane and who flew the kind of trips where the Malibu shined.
Pressurizing a single isn’t easy—Mooney’s Mustang was a bust. Cessna pulled it off using a proven airframe in the P210, but it had its growing pains. Piper’s execution left something to be desired. Although owners generally raved—and still rave—about the Malibu’s impressive capabilities, it gained a reputation as a problem airplane. The engine and systems were finicky to operate, and dispatch reliability ranged from barely acceptable to just awful for some years.
As the model evolved and became the Mirage, its reputation didn’t improve. Indeed, some owners believe that with the Mirage, Piper jumped from the pan into the fire, especially with regard to engine longevity. (Or lack of it.)
Yet, with time and the application of money, most of the problems got sorted out, and the fact remains, nothing quite does what a Malibu does. As one owner put it, “It’s expensive to operate for a piston single, but cheap for what it does.” We think that fairly sums up the Malibu. Anyone contemplating buying one should be ready to pay what we consider to be substantial maintenance bills, with the reward being fast cruise speeds above the weather in pressurized comfort and reasonable payload.
Model History
The PA-46 is the last from-the-ground-up new airframe Piper has produced. The turbine-powered Meridian uses the same basic airframe the Malibu pioneered but with substantial modifications. The Matrix is an unpressurized Mirage. The Malibu prototype emerged from the Vero Beach plant in late 1982, amidst much fanfare and excitement.
No one had seen anything quite like it. It had a long, rakish snoot housing a six-cylinder Continental TSIO-520BE rated at 310 HP and with two turbochargers, providing enough bleed air to keep the cabin comfortably inflated at FL250.
With its 43-foot wingspan, the Malibu looked as much like a glider as a powered aircraft. As one owner said, the thing looked like it was going 200 knots sitting on the ground. The base price was an eye-watering $275,000 but with accessories, the typical invoice swelled to more than $320,000, or $550,000 in 2003 dollars.
Ironically, Piper launched the Malibu in 1984 into what was an overall GA slump. Yet Piper prospered with the Malibu because of its capabilities and unusual luxury. Although the company succeeded, its success was haunted by engineering decisions made early in the program.
As is often the case, the production airplane was heavier than intended, but this was offset by a boost in takeoff weight. Useful load worked out to be 80 pounds less than planned; not a deal breaker, but a weight equivalent to fuel for IFR reserves.
For an airplane of the Malibu’s ambitious leanings, the right engine is a must. Piper never seemed able to find the right powerplant, however. From the beginning, buyers favored a Lycoming because of a perceived reputation for reliability and robustness.
The would-be owners turned out to be correct, at least initially. The Continental package evolved into such a nightmare—piston pins and crankshaft bearings in particular—that in 1987, Piper asked owners to ground their airplanes voluntarily until the problems could be worked out.
Many owners maintain that the Continental was and is a superior engine for the Malibu but in 1989, Piper introduced the Malibu Mirage with a Lycoming engine. It was essentially the same airplane with a Lycoming TIO-540-AE2A of 350 HP. The new engine weighed 113 pounds more, but the maximum takeoff weight was boosted by 200 pounds. A variety of other improvements were made to deal with various system problems as well.
Continental Woes
The Malibu’s Continental power-plant got lots of attention early on—little of it favorable—but some of the airplane’s other systems didn’t distinguish themselves, either. The complex nosegear, which rotates 90 degrees to fit into its bay, proved delicate.
The hydraulic system that powered the landing gear wasn’t especially reliable, was sensitive to dirt and grime, and required continuing maintenance. The hydraulics also ran the flaps on early models. To make the airplane appealing to what Piper thought was its core market, the company called for exceptional range we’ll beyond the fuel specifics of most six-cylinder engines. Continental thus specified operating requirements for the engine that were unusual at the time, specifically lean-of-peak EGT operation.
To beat down the fuel flow, Continental required pilots to lean the engine to 50 degrees lean of peak for all operations below 80 percent power, which is the maximum recommended cruise setting. That went against what most pilots had been taught before the current understanding of lean-of-peak ops—and a fair number ignored the instructions and ran rich of peak.
Whoever was to blame for Malibu engine problems, squabbles between owners, Piper and TCM grew heated and ugly at times. The irony is that the fixes applied to the Continental made it as good as the Lycoming installation. Both are sensitive to proper operating technique.
Mirage
With the introduction of the Mirage, some of the systems were addressed. The hydraulic system was improved, the engine cooling system was redesigned, the cabin door was improved, the seats were strengthened and the flaps were changed from hydraulic to electric operation. (Actually, some of the later Malibu models got the electric flaps and improved hydraulics for the gear.)
The Mirage also got some big-airplane type features that owners appreciate: a dual-bus electrical system, internal windshield deice, standard dual alternators and vacuum pumps, and an auxiliary heater for the cabin. It needed it. It’s cold back there in the flight levels, even during the summer. (Again, some of these mods appeared on later Malibus.)
Lycoming Better?
Substituting one engine for another didn’t solve all of the Malibu’s problems and it brought some of its own, not the least of which is higher fuel consumption.
Owners suffered through Lycoming’s massive crankshaft recall of 2002 and 2003 and weeks to months of downtime.
The perceived reliability of the Mirage got so bad among some owners that a class action lawsuit was filed in 2000 against New Piper and Lycoming. The suit was settled after the court failed to certify the class.
Engine reliability has not been good, although the airplane is such a good glider that many events didn’t become an NTSB report because the pilot was able to land safely on an airport. Our most recent survey of accidents showed that 17 percent were engine-related.
Maintenance is, as an owner told us, “a serious activity” for PA-46 owners, regardless of the powerplant type. Alternators, vacuum pumps and, in particular, the exhaust system are all items mentioned by our survey respondents and matched the Service Difficulty Reports reported to the FAA.
What we did see is that things have improved over the years. Ten years ago, an owner reported that the maintenance expenses for the first two years of ownership of his Mirage came to we’ll over $46,000. While we have received reports of squawk lists on annuals reaching 25 percent of the value of the airplane, the majority of owners say that they recognize it’s expensive to maintain a pressurized single and if they stay ahead of the game, the price is not outrageous. One reported that his annuals average $6500 for everything; another said $7000 to $10,000.
The PA-46 nosegear is tender and the hydraulic system continues to pose problems. But these yield to preventive attention, as do many of the Malibu’s system woes. Even ardent supporters of the airplane admit that it requires frequent and ongoing maintenance. Owners emphasize the value of having a knowledgeable maintenance shop doing routine and ongoing work on the airplane. The Malibu is not an airplane that just any shop can fix.
More than a few owners have had experience with several Malibus and/or Mirages. Is one better than the other in terms of maintenance? Our impression is that they’re about the same and that any owner contemplating buying a PA-46 should simply budget a pile of cash for annual maintenance and fix stuff as it breaks. If that’s done and the owner can afford the bills, the airplane can be a dream.
Cabin, Cockpit
The PA-46’s claim to fame is that it’s a six-place airplane with cabin class comfort. Well, yes. Starting up front, however, the cockpit isn’t exactly cavernous. Getting into the seats requires minor contortions through a narrow aisle between bulkheads walling off the rear cabin.
Pilots who are wide of girth and long of leg will be cramped up front; the seats don’t slide back as far as they do in a Mooney or a Cessna. The cockpit is we’ll designed in both models with well-placed gauges and plenty of room for all the avionics you could ever want. Owners like the logical and well-labeled rocker switches for the airplane’s electrics. Later models have overhead switches which are a challenge for the presbyopic set and concern us from a crashworthiness standpoint.
The cabin arrangement is superb, with the Mirage somewhat better than the original Malibu. The airstair door is a plus, making for relatively easy entry and egress. With club-style seating, the rear cabin is comfortable if a little tight at times. Rear-seat passengers complain about too little heat—fixed with the aux heater—but the air conditioning/pressurization system is quite good, when it isn’t broken. Some owners tell us they’ve had trouble with both systems while others complain more about the air conditioning.
Cabin and cockpit noise are on the low side as GA airplanes go. The Continental in the Malibu is noticeably less vibey than the Lycoming in the Mirage, according to owners.
Like most airplanes, the Malibu is not a fill-the-seats-and-tanks six seater. But it will comfortably carry four people and baggage with full tanks, yielding a non-stop range of about 1400 miles for the Malibu and 1000 to 1200 miles for the Mirage. Typical useful loads are 1400 pounds and 1300 pounds, respectively.
Baggage space is generous, with two baggage bays, one just aft of the engine compartment and the other behind the rear seats, making loading within limits easier. Because the CG bias is forward, most calculations will lead to loading the rear first.
The Mirage’s Lycoming engine is larger and the accessory layout is different, so the forward baggage bay in the Mirage is a bit smaller than that of the Malibu. The inclusion of an access panel in the firewall is a good tradeoff, since it makes it much easier to get at the backside of the powerplant.
Performance, Handling
Malibu performance puts the airplane in a category with many twin-engine airplanes but on less fuel. Malibu pilots report cruise speeds of 205 knots TAS at FL220 at 67 percent power and 210 knots true at FL250 at 75 percent. Mirage pilots pay more at the gas pumps but in exchange, they go a little faster, with speeds typically of 220 knots at FL230-250 at 75 percent power burning 18.8 GPH.
Owners of both models say they can fly 1100-NM trips with IFR reserves. But we have our doubts about the fuel-guzzling Mirage matching range with the Malibu in real-world conditions. The power setting and leaning would have to be right. The -310P, with its lower fuel consumption—as much as 4 to 5 GPH when flown by the book—has nearly 25 percent better range and is only about 5 percent slower. One owner cited this as the reason he chose the Malibu over the Mirage.
On trips of any length, most owners climb rapidly into at least the high teens, but the airplane is perfectly at home up to FL250. One place it’s not at home is taking off from short runways. Initial acceleration is sluggish, although the airplane will get in and out of 3000-foot strips at sea level with relative ease. We would pause at operating out of 2500 feet or less.
How about handling? “A delight to fly, high or low,” says one owner. The handling characteristics of the PA-46 are indeed excellent, although they lack the rocklike stability that many instrument pilots prefer.
We’re not talking Bonanza handling here but the controls are responsive, with pitch the lightest and roll the heaviest. The PA-46’s long, high-aspect-ratio wing is good for climb and high-altitude performance, but along with it comes a low maneuvering speed in the mid-130s KIAS at gross, decreasing as the airplane gets lighter.
The long wings produce another undesirable trait: The roll rate at slow speeds is somewhat ponderous compared to other singles. Sharp stick-and-rudder work in crosswinds is a must.
During descents, it’s easy to get above maneuvering speed or even redline if you’re not paying attention. This, along with the autopilot and weather factors, was implicated in a string of inflight breakups that led to a great deal of consternation (and an AD-mandated restriction on operations) in 1991. But no positive link was confirmed, and the airplane was given a clean bill of health.
Speed control is a must. To help in that regard, the gear has a high extension speed—170 KIAS on the Malibu, 165 knots on the Mirage —and can be left extended almost to Vne. The first notch of flaps can be extended at the same time as the gear. Pilots report that the gear makes an effective speed brake. Retraction speed is much lower, at 130 knots (Malibu) and 126 knots (Mirage) KIAS.
Many PA-46 incidents occur during landing. There isn’t anything particularly difficult about landing a PA-46, but the long wing encourages floating and when lightly loaded, the CG is forward. These two characteristics sometimes lead to abuse of the relatively delicate nosegear.
As owners report, the PA-46 is we’ll supported by one of the best owner groups in general aviation, the Malibu/Mirage Owners and Pilot’s Association found at www.mmopa.com. The group has excellent information on ownership issues. MMOPA also tracks mods for the PA-46, which include three- and four-blade props, IO-550 conversions, long-range tanks, interior mods, plus the JetProp turboprop conversion.
Owner Comments
I may hold the record for the longest ownership of a PA-46, having bought mine new from the factory in 1984. I like the airplane a lot and have flown it about 2700 hours. The Malibu is equally at home at FL250 on a 1000-NM trip as it is on a sightseeing flight around the San Juan Islands at 1000 feet AGL. The Continental engine allows cruising at 180-210 knots, depending on altitude, on 14-16 GPH running LOP, which is required. I’ve found the cabin to be ideal for carrying Angel Flight passengers and their families.
As with most early production airplanes, mine has a relatively low empty weight and a very decent useful load of 1325 pounds. There’s a lot of flexibility to trade off between fuel and passengers, especially with the low fuel consumption and 120-gallon capacity.
Maintenance is a serious activity—I figure $7000-$10,000 for an annual—and only use shops that really know the airplane and maintain a lot of them. Insurance runs $6000 per year for $300,000 in hull value and $2 million liability coverage.
Bill Ayer
Via email
After owning a Cessna 182T and T206, I purchased a 2010 Mirage. The Mirage owns a niche that no other piston single can compete with for comfort, pressurization, speed, FIKI and efficiency—and the ramp presence is pretty nice, too.
I found no surprises while transitioning to the Mirage, the airframe and flight characteristics were predictable and trustworthy. It sure is nice to fly above the weather.
Being a fairly low-time pilot at 550 hours when I purchased theMirage, I found the initial training and support from MMOPA to be invaluable. As a pilot and owner, I rely on the Association for top-notch tech support, safety training, events and resources.
Chuck Basil
Via email
Over three years, I have flown my 2007 Mirage over much of the country. Costs for absolutely everything have run $850 per hour at 140 hours per year.
Dan Peterson
Via email
I own and operate a Mirage with the JetProp DLX conversion, which I base in Thailand. I was told this airplane is the best bang for the buck in its class, and I have not been disappointed during my five years of ownership. Dispatch reliability has been excellent—I average 250 hours per year.
I operate out of an 800-meter by 10-meter asphalt runway. How many other aircraft have a performance envelope that allows takeoffs and landings in that distance, on very hot and humid days, and then a climb to FL270 and a cruise of 260 knots burning 30 GPH?
The basic Malibu design has stood the test of time very well. Most ADs and Service Bulletins are historical, with very few recent issues. The support from the MMOPA is second to none. I spent an extensive amount of effort and time in the forums before I decided to buy. It was we’ll worth the cost of membership.
Eduardo Loigorri
Via email
I own a Malibu as we’ll as the world’s largest PA-46 maintenance facility in the world. Occasionally a pilot will purchase a PA-46, thinking it is just a little more expensive to operate than his/her previous aircraft, only to find out that some of the systems installed on the plane are quite costly to maintain. For some of the early aircraft, it is not uncommon for an annual inspection discrepancy list to exceed 25 percent of the value of the airplane. On the flip side, there is no other aircraft that can do what the PA-46 does as efficiently and inexpensively.
It is important to get a prebuy from a competent shop. I’ve generated a discrepancy list of $180,000 on an airplane only three hours out of an annual at a Piper dealer. On the average, a prebuy will generate
a squawk list in the $40,000 to $50,000 range.
Chad Menne
Via email
I have owned a 1990 Mirage for three years. After six months of ownership, I replaced the engine with a 460-hours-since-new surplus engine from Rocket Engineering (from a PA-46 that was converted to turboprop) and a three-blade prop conversion. The airplane will now do an ILS missed approach at Chihauhau, Mexico, without any circling or other gymnastics.
The airplane has been amazingly trouble-free, even when compared to a Cherokee. It is a pity Jack Riley is no longer with us; the airplane could do with a STOL conversion—our sea-level minimum runway limit is 3000 feet of pavement.
Jack Wybenga
Via email
I can give you the punch line already—if maintained by an experienced PA-46 shop, the service record is very positive. The learning curve for the inexperienced is pretty steep because there are more systems than usual in a piston-powered airplane and the common systems are frequently set up differently.
John Foster
Via email
I bought my 1999 Mirage in 2004. First engine went to 1800 hours—top between, of course, and the second engine is going very strong. I have 2300 hours on the airplane, now. I buy used engines from Rocket Engineering, who converts these airplanes to turbines and has extra, low-time engines around. Usually about 350 hours on a used engine and it comes with a mount, vacuum pumps, alternators, turbos, etc. Nice.
I went from a 1979 Cessna T210 to the Mirage and spend, all things considered, less to fly the Mirage. Insurance is $5800 a year for $2 million smooth coverage, and annuals run $6500 for everything.
This is the most reliable, comfortable and capable plane that I’ve ever had. Dispatch is 99.5 percent. Pressurization and the cabin is great. Weather capability is great, so long as the PIC knows the plane and pilot limitations. The ability to inflate the boots and pop off the ice is a real comfort builder.
Range is terrific. I have long-range tanks and rarely use them. The main tanks hold 120 gallons and yield a solid five-plus hours of flight. I can put another 25 gallons in the long-range tanks and did so when I flew from Iceland to Scotland in the plane, without thinking twice about it.
I most often cruise between 16,000 and 17,500 feet. It gets me over most weather, there is very little traffic and the cabin is at 3500 feet MSL. Speed is usually about 192 knots, burning 20.5 GPH. 1999 was the only model year that had the KFC225 autopilot, which I like. I’ve installed a Garmin G500 system, which is coupled to the autopilot, and have no regrets or complaints.
Gerald Blank
Via email
The good: comfort—I’ve had people with a fear of flying overcome it in the plane because it is so comfortable. It’s stable and handles turbulence well; I love flying it.
The bad: The engine mount design has caused over 30 documented nose gear collapses. Piper has not fixed the design, although it has issued a Service Bulletin. My nose gear collapse was caused by a cracked engine mount that wasn’t caught at the annual. There is an STC that fixes the problem. The airplane has so many specialized systems that you can’t trust it to just any shop.
Dave Ferguson
Via email